JMIR Publications

JMIR Serious Games


Citing this Article

Right click to copy or hit: ctrl+c (cmd+c on mac)

Published on 31.07.17 in Vol 5, No 3 (2017): Jul-Sept

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

    Original Paper

    Designing Serious Computer Games for People With Moderate and Advanced Dementia: Interdisciplinary Theory-Driven Pilot Study

    1Melabev - Community Clubs for Eldercare, Research and Development Department, Jerusalem, Israel

    2Communication, Aging and Neuropsychology Lab (CANlab), Baruch Ivcher School of Psychology, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), Herzliya, Herzliya, Israel

    3Department of Speech-Language Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    4Rehabilitation Sciences Institute (RSI), Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    5Toronto Rehabilitation Institute (TRI), University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    *these authors contributed equally

    Corresponding Author:

    Boaz M Ben-David, PhD

    Communication, Aging and Neuropsychology Lab (CANlab)

    Baruch Ivcher School of Psychology

    Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), Herzliya

    PO Box 167

    Herzliya, 4610101


    Phone: 972 9 960 2429

    Fax:972 9 960 2845



    Background: The field of serious games for people with dementia (PwD) is mostly driven by game-design principals typically applied to games created by and for younger individuals. Little has been done developing serious games to help PwD maintain cognition and to support functionality.

    Objectives: We aimed to create a theory-based serious game for PwD, with input from a multi-disciplinary team familiar with aging, dementia, and gaming theory, as well as direct input from end users (the iterative process). Targeting enhanced self-efficacy in daily activities, the goal was to generate a game that is acceptable, accessible and engaging for PwD.

    Methods: The theory-driven game development was based on the following learning theories: learning in context, errorless learning, building on capacities, and acknowledging biological changes—all with the aim to boost self-efficacy. The iterative participatory process was used for game screen development with input of 34 PwD and 14 healthy community dwelling older adults, aged over 65 years. Development of game screens was informed by the bio-psychological aging related disabilities (ie, motor, visual, and perception) as well as remaining neuropsychological capacities (ie, implicit memory) of PwD. At the conclusion of the iterative development process, a prototype game with 39 screens was used for a pilot study with 24 PwD and 14 healthy community dwelling older adults. The game was played twice weekly for 10 weeks.

    Results: Quantitative analysis showed that the average speed of successful screen completion was significantly longer for PwD compared with healthy older adults. Both PwD and controls showed an equivalent linear increase in the speed for task completion with practice by the third session (P<.02). Most important, the rate of improved processing speed with practice was not statistically different between PwD and controls. This may imply that some form of learning occurred for PwD at a nonsignificantly different rate than for controls. Qualitative results indicate that PwD found the game engaging and fun. Healthy older adults found the game too easy. Increase in self-reported self-efficacy was documented with PwD only.

    Conclusions: Our study demonstrated that PwD’s speed improved with practice at the same rate as healthy older adults. This implies that when tasks are designed to match PwD’s abilities, learning ensues. In addition, this pilot study of a serious game, designed for PwD, was accessible, acceptable, and enjoyable for end users. Games designed based on learning theories and input of end users and a multi-disciplinary team familiar with dementia and aging may have the potential of maintaining capacity and improving functionality of PwD. A larger longer study is needed to confirm our findings and evaluate the use of these games in assessing cognitive status and functionality.

    JMIR Serious Games 2017;5(3):e16





    Aging in place is a desirable social and economic goal in our rapidly aging global society [1]. Maintaining cognitive functionality while aging is important to achieve this goal. Cognitive stimulation games have been used and studied as a method for maintaining healthy aging brains [2]. The use of computer games for cognitive stimulation and prevention of cognitive decline in healthy older adults is a fast growing area of research, sometimes referred to as “neuro-games” [3,4].

    A budding field of research is the use of computer games for people with dementia [5-9]. With the global rise of people with dementia (PwD) [10] and the huge economic cost of their care, there is an increasing desire to maintain PwD at home and not institutions, for as long as possible [11]. One of the key factors in keeping PwD in their homes, as opposed to nursing homes, is related to their ability to maintain functionality of simple daily activities, despite their cognitive decline. Indeed, when families opt for institutionalization, it is usually on the basis of a loss of the PwD’s ability to eat independently, as well as perform activities related to personal hygiene, such as grooming and toileting [12]. The development of modalities to maintain aging in place for PwD could include computer-based games specifically designed to accommodate functional limitations and build on their remaining capacities [13-15].

    Serious games offer the promise of low cost interventions in the care of PwD [16]. In addition, they require minimal professional supervision (ie, by an occupational therapist) and can be played with the assistance of formal or informal caregivers. The American Society of Occupational Therapy has developed computer applications for assisting individuals with autism and dementia [17]. However, very few of the efforts cited have used theory-driven learning theories in the game development or reported on the iterative human centered design process of game development with the end users involvement.

    This paper aimed to contribute to methodology of game design for PwD. Our goal was to create a serious game that is acceptable, accessible, and engaging for people with moderate and advanced dementia based on DSM-5 criteria [18]. Our approach aims to bridge the transfer gap between “game designers” practice and knowledge, and neuro-psychosocial scientific knowledge of aging and dementia. In addition, our game design considers theories of learning and the impact of the “built environment” as compensatory constructs in learning. The overall aim of our gaming approach was to facilitate people with moderate and advanced dementia to arrive at an increased sense of self efficacy, which, according to recent research in neuropsychology, directly contributes to psychological, cognitive, and physical health, and thus serves as a key enabler in exercising and prolonging functionality [19].

    Theoretical Framework for Game Screen Development

    The game was designed with input from a multi-disciplinary team familiar with aging and dementia and gaming theory as well as direct input from end users (the iterative process) [20]. Each game screen was developed with the input of 34 PwD, 14 community dwelling healthy older adults (ages 65-90), an occupational therapist, gerontologist, an MD PhD specialist in technology for health, a computer engineer, and a PhD cognitive psychologist specializing in cognitive and sensory aging. The complete game includes 39 screens.

    The theoretical models that form the underpinnings of our game are based on a multidisciplinary model outlined in Figure 1. The key frameworks involved (1) acknowledging the physiological changes associated with aging, (2) dementia’s neuropsychosocial induced changes, (3) applying learning theories that focus on “errorless learning,” learning in context, and building on remaining capacity (implicit memory), (4) external compensatory mechanisms, the “built environment” theoretical constructs including design, spatial orientation frames all brought to bear on, and (5) improving “self-perceived” self-efficacy. In later sections, each of these topics is briefly discussed first, and then the person-centered technological approach to the game development is presented, followed by the description of the iterative process of developing the game screens with direct input from the end users (people with moderate and advanced dementia).

    Figure 1. Multidisciplinary constructs and theories in designing serious games for people with dementia.
    View this figure

    Enhancing Self Efficacy in PwD

    The most important construct influencing our gaming strategy is aimed to enhance the self-efficacy of PwD, an important component of executive function [21]. A central problem that PwD experience is the gradual loss of cognitive and physiological capabilities in their daily lives. Indeed, not just intellectual tasks but simple activities of daily living (ADL) become more challenging. However, the literature shows (and experiential data in our daycare centers supports) there is a gap between a PwD capacity to learn and participate in daily tasks and their performance, as measured by cognitive instruments [22]. Physiological decline impacts on the PwD’s speed of completing tasks and movement. This is often exacerbated by family and caregivers who significantly and unknowingly contribute to PwD’s choice-limitations, as related to everyday living activities. Caregivers tend to do things for the PwD that the PwD could do on their own. This excessive involvement and over protection by caregivers tends to reduce the PwD’s confidence in their own abilities and competence, leading to premature disengagement by the PwD. On the other hand, adapted environments encourage independence in activity and help to maintain one's sense of perceived self-efficacy [23].

    The concept of self-efficacy has grown out of a social psychology construct of human agency [24]. However, its bases are very old and embedded in such perennial philosophical underpinnings as theories of determinism, choice, intentionality, free will, and causality. There are 2 distinct, yet overlapping, theories that underlie the self-efficacy: (1) Motivational theories, which conceptualize self-efficacy in motivational terms and (2) Cognitive theories, which conceptualize self-efficacy in terms of expectancies and perceptions of control. Both theories, alongside empirical evidence, support the notion that self-efficacy plays a significant role in functionality (physical and cognitive) of PwD [25]. Therefore, our highest level objective in our design strategy was to utilize serious games to create the conditions and opportunities to rebuild and maintain a sense of self-efficacy, along with acknowledging the challenges on self-efficacy arising from normal and pathological physiological changes, as well as the PwD’s family and caregivers attitudes toward this slope of decline.

    Cognitive Changes Related to Aging and Dementia

    One of the main characteristics of dementia relates to cognitive impairments, specifically, changes in memory encoding and memory retrieval. In addition, research supports that PwD also experience a reduction in executive functions—including planning, working memory, and selective attention [26]. Executive functions are central to most cognitive processes: the ability to focus on one aspect of the environment, to ignore other unrelated information, and to switch between them when prompted.

    Selective attention has been marked as one of the major areas of cognitive impairments in dementia in general and Alzheimer dementia specifically [27], related to a reduction in the efficiency of inhibition [28], above and beyond age-related changes. This impairment may be linked with changes to frontal lobe regions [29]. These cognitive changes should be considered during game development. For example, reduced efficiency of inhibitory processes may translate to difficulties PwD will have in ignoring the irrelevant information presented on the screen during the game, or the information embedded in an irrelevant dimension of the stimuli presented (for a further discussion see Lustig et al [30]). Several aspects of our game were designed to tackle this change. For example, our design strategy was to avoid the clutter of the screen, thus reducing the amount of information PwD will need to inhibit. Additional factors related to the dementia process were taken into consideration, such as attention span, inhibition of initiation or perseveration, eye hand coordination, semantic sequencing, orientation to time and place, sustained attention, agnosia, and judgment.

    Sensory Motor Degradation Related to Aging and Dementia

    Research shows that PwD do not face only cognitive deficiencies related to executive function, but also other deficiencies in auditory [31,32], visual [33] and other sensory systems [34] that contribute to cognitive deficits and difficulties in daily functionality [35]. For example, Ben-David and colleagues [36] have recently showed that reduced performance for PwD (as compared to healthy older adults) on a task that gauges executive functions (the Stroop color-word test) can be partially mediated by dementia-related changes in color-vision [37]. Auditory changes can also lead to reduced cognitive performance, especially in daily life activities such as communication [38]. This dual sensory loss (visual and auditory) also has direct implications on game administration. It reduces the comprehension of spoken instructions and increases the effort and the amount of cognitive resources invested in speech processing, thus tapping into the already reduced pool of resources [39-41]. Together, this cognitive and sensory interaction is expressed as a part of the information degradation hypothesis [42]. The theory postulates that as the perceptual system receives degraded information from the senses, it leads to reduced cognitive performance.

    To address the above listed challenges, we considered multisensory approaches to enhance PwD’s daily functionality, such as using a variety of cues [43], both visual and auditory [44], as well as adjusting color and light setting. For example, an estimate of 88% of the aging population have very high failure rates of discrimination in the red-green and blue-yellow spectrum [45]. These age-related physiological changes were taken into consideration during the design relating to layout, color and instruction delivery methods and demonstration. Special attention in the design of the game was paid to the linguistics/semantic challenges of PwD [46-48].

    Finally, sensory-motor degradation was considered in the design of the game environment. For example, during the iterative process, we learned from the comments of the end-users (34 PwD and 14 healthy community dwelling older adults) and the observations of the testers that the placement of the tablet has to be such as to allow visualization with natural light and no screen glare from artificial light or sun. The tablet should be placed in a comfortable position for the PwD, table height, and in a quiet environment with few distractions (again acknowledging cognitive changes).

    Making the Game Engaging

    Serious games for older adults should be engaging and fun and further contribute to easing the personal burden of families and caregivers of PwD, as Robert and colleagues [49] among others, point out. The motivation to perform the task, an often-ignored factor, plays a large role in the performance of older adults. Specifically, framing tasks in an engaging, relevant context can improve performance [50]. For example, research by Zimerman et al [51] suggests that cognitive tasks, targeted originally with college students in mind, appear unsnagging for older adults, and may impact negatively on their ability to perform at their full capacity. This is of specific importance, as PwD are much more focused on emotional and social issues than on abstract problems [52-54]. While we aimed to design the serious game application in a simple “clean” fashion to facilitate sensory and cognitive processing, we were aware of the importance of designing the game screens in a visually engaging way. We postulate that when performing a task in an engaging context and by choosing stimuli that relate to PwD, the resulting increase in perceived self-efficacy would increase executive function and thus improve learning and performance. These relevant learning theories are discussed next.

    Learning Theories

    The majority of serious games, or games for health, have utilized the important construct of entertainment as the major motivator for game construction. In our efforts to create a game for PwD based on information and communication technology (ICT), we put emphasis on age appropriate entertainment venues as defined by the end users themselves, and based on the concept that fun “learning in context” is a framework that induces capacity building for all persons and especially those people with disabilities, both physical and cognitive [55].

    Learning in Context

    “Learning in context” has been defined in a variety of ways, however, the basic supposition is that adult learning does not take place in a vacuum, but within a sociocultural model, or as Hassin coined: learning “outside the mind” [56]. In the sociocultural models, learning is not something that happens, or is just inside the head, but instead, it is shaped by the context, culture, and tools in the learning situation. Russian psychologist LS Vygotsky was the pioneer of “learning in context”, a sociocultural theory of learning, in contrast to psychological and behavioral understandings of learning [57]. His work is based on the concept that all human activities take place in a cultural context with many levels of interactions, shared beliefs, values, knowledge, skills, structured relationships, and symbol systems [58]. These interactions and activities are mediated through the use of tools, either technical (machines, computers, calculators) or psychological (language, counting, writing, and strategies for learning), provided by the culture [59]. These tools ensure that linguistically created meanings have shared social meanings. His theories are relevant for our end-users, PwD, using technical and psychological tools to build upon the cultural learning of PwD and practice skills. Thus “learning in context” is a form of situated cognition [60]—that is, learning is inherently social in nature. Following this approach, learning takes place in 5 sequential phases that allow scaffolding of learning experiences (for a review, see [61]): (1) modeling, (2) approximating, (3) fading, (4) self-directed learning and, (5) generalizing.

    Learning in context has been linked with basic cognitive constructs. Nisbett [62] postulated that implicit memory and learning is one of the products of context learning, based on the ontological assumption that interpretations of tasks are based on a background of past experience and intellectual resources. Nisbett suggested that cognitive structures are constructed and developed in particular social circumstances. The significance of cognitive structures resides in their deployment in cognitive activity, such as problem-solving, transfer, and learning.

    Given the cognitive, physical, and sensory challenges of aging people with dementia, we focused on the above cited literature on learning theories to support our use of game screens, based on contextual learning. Specifically, our game screens utilized cultural memories and implicit memory, which are relatively more preserved for PwD. Implicit memory is one of the two main types of long-term memory which has recently been actively investigated as an important construct of cognitive function and overlooked to the usually measured explicit memory. Implicit memory includes procedural learning (eg, skills and habits), priming, and classical conditioning. These learning processes do not require conscious recollection of information, instead learning is expressed through performance or behavior [63]. Indeed, implicit memory or specifically non-declarative memory is acquired and used without the need (or ability) to verbally describe the process. For example, in procedural memory when tying one’s shoe or riding a bike, processes are learned and conducted without consciously thinking about the actions. It is a type of indirect, unintentional manifestation of prior experience [64].

    Explicit memory, on the other hand, refers to the conscious, intentional recollection of factual information, previous experiences and concepts. While the literature documents well an age-related decline in explicit memory, numerous studies have shown that implicit memory is spared in older adults [65-67]. Even mild cognitively impaired older adults [68] and people with Alzheimer disease [69] showed some form of preserved implicit memory. This capacity can be utilized for reinforcing scaffolding learning theories. The aim of our game is to focus on practical activities in an entertaining, visually captivating and age appropriate presentation based on scaffolding learning theories [70].

    Errorless Learning

    Within the framework of situated cognition learning in context, errorless learning methodology and cueing offers an important path to present the task so that a PwD overcomes inhibitions and limitations arising from low perceived self-efficacy. Errorless learning is “a teaching technique whereby people are prevented, as far as possible, from making mistakes while they are learning a new skill or acquiring new information” [71]. Major ways of achieving errorless learning are to use various cues, to complete the task collaboratively with the PwD, adjust the expectations of both client and designer, and make the task as doable as possible to the PwD. This approach assumes that new learning is stronger and more durable if mistakes are eliminated during training. Performance becomes automated through imitative learning and repetitive practice of perfect task execution. Errorless learning is not suited for all populations. With neurologically intact individuals, conscious or explicit memory of having made an error minimizes the impact of error learning. However, the deficit in explicit recall in PwD eliminates this counterweight to error learning and renders a PwD more vulnerable to its negative impact. In other words, PwD may remember the error, rather than learn the correct way to complete the task (ie, rather than learning that it was an error).

    In the pertinent literature, there is an ongoing debate about the benefits of erroneous [72,73] versus errorless learning on memory creation. However, incorporating errorless learning scenarios within an active learning paradigm is a widely accepted practice in rehabilitation and dementia treatment, as it was found to maximize successful retrieval opportunities [74,75]. Indeed, errorless learning is taken as an encoding method that results in superior retrospective memory compared with erroneous learning. Neuropsychological studies indicate that people with compromised explicit memory are adversely affected by errors made during learning, and that implicit memory is sufficient to produce an errorless learning advantage for PwD [76]. This is perhaps due to the fact that erroneous learning demands greater frontal/executive contributions [77].

    It is important to highlight the fact that there is something lost in an “errorless learning” approach. Psychological research in learning and memory identifies the opportunity to engage in difficult (hence error-prone) as very important in successful learning, most specifically for retrieval of learnt information (for a review, see [78]). However, working with PwD, we aim at compensatory learning approaches in an attempt to improve function by recruiting relatively intact neurocognitive processes to fill the role of impaired ones. Thus, it is assumed that new learning is stronger and more durable if mistakes are eliminated during training. Performance becomes automated through imitative learning and repetitive practice of perfect task execution [79].

    In summary, all other factors being equal, it appears that there is ample evidence to suggest that errorless learning procedures are likely to improve retrieval in people with memory impairments relative to erroneous methods [80].

    Cueing, Priming, and Semantic Considerations

    In addition to errorless learning in PwD, the procedure of cueing or priming and semantic structuring of instructions are important elements in cognitive functioning especially in semantic dementia. Priming is an implicit memory effect in which exposure to one stimulus (ie, perceptual pattern) influences the response to another stimulus [81]. The literature generally suggests that performance on implicit memory tasks, such as repetition priming, deteriorates in AD. However, these AD-related impairments were not found for all priming tasks. Indeed, in a longitudinal study using different priming tasks, only conceptual priming task (category- exemplar) was significantly impacted by AD neuropathology. Priming tasks that involves perceptual processing (word-identification, picture-naming, or word-stem completion tests) were not necessarily associated with a decline in AD [82,83]

    Consequently, we chose in our game the use of visual-spatial cueing or priming [84]. Visual-spatial cueing represents a form of learning in context [85,86]. Using context to facilitate object recognition has gained importance in design, acknowledging both the role context plays in object recognition in human visual processing (Gestalt theory) and the striking algorithmic improvements that “visual context” has provided [87]. Based on the learning theories presented, we opted to use encouraging prompts when an error occurred. This method minimizes erroneous learning. Thus, it increases the impact of self-efficacy, building on the remaining capacities of a person to learn how to play the game successfully.

    Special attention in the design of the game was given to the linguistics and semantic challenges of PwD, (for example, see [88,89]). These principles were incorporated in our game design by structuring the instructions in short simple sentences, for example, “Please drag the ball to the boy.” The modality of instructions delivery was also considered, in view of limitations in sustained attention, possible visual and auditory degradation, and cultural nuances of language. Therefore, in our game, instructions are provided in writing for each game screen, as well as vocal spoken instructions adapted to the culture of our target population. Every instruction for each game screen was tested with the end-users, (34 PwD and 14 healthy community dwelling older adults) various times during the iterative development process. Game screens were adapted and corrected for the final prototype game based on the verbal feedback of the end-users, as well as their ability to understand the instructions and succeed at the game as observed by the testers.

    Interaction of the Different Elements and Built Environment

    We adopted modern viewpoints on cognitive performance in aging that consider the full context rather than focus on performance alone. In these views, all the elements of the model interact to shape performance. This complex interplay guides us in our design of the game and in our focus on human-centered technology, as discussed in the next section. For example, sensory changes were noted to affect performance on cognitive tasks in older age (sensory degradation hypothesis [90]), where reduced performance was linked with reduced acuity. Game engagement will clearly also be affected by sensory changes, as reduced sensory input leads to more effortful processing, potentially reducing engagement [91]. In other words, the game is less engaging if one cannot see it clearly. Learning in context is chosen to overcome cognitive changes in dementia, by using the most preserved intellectual abilities and knowledge [92]. Similarly, the choice of cueing and priming is designed considering visual sensory changes, and cognitive changes in dementia. Likewise, instructions and their presentation were designed considering learning in context, along with cognitive [93] and sensory changes.

    This interplay can be exemplified in the variety of elements that are best classified as “built environment.” Built environment encompasses the design parameters related to the technological (machine) and screen design characteristics, as well as the physical environment within which the prototype game was pilot tested. In describing their CREATE model on designing technology for older adults, Rogers and Fink [94] explain that successful performance depends on demands imposed by the environment relative to capabilities of the individual (environmental press). This model illustrates the range and type of variables that must be considered when developing technology for older adults. As described in this introduction, our design methodology has taken many variables into consideration in order to develop a game best suited to PwD.

    Technology Considerations

    In our overall strategy, we focused on person-centered technology, including the following 2 central guidelines: the Human Centered Design (HCD) and the Iterative Process [95,96].

    The definition is outlined in the International Standardization Organization (ISO) standard Human Centered Design for Interactive Systems: ISO 9241-210 [97]. The HCD ISO guidelines are as follows: (1) Understand and specify the context of use, (2) Specify the user requirements, (3) Produce design solutions, and (4) Evaluate. We embedded this process within the iterative design process, where end-users (34 PwD and 14 healthy community dwelling elders) were involved directly in the creation and clarification of each game screen. The iterative, human centered approach [96] is the strategy we chose to follow for development of each game screen, as research shows that PwD, despite cognitive decline, can (and should) provide insight and user feedback that improves usability and human experience [98].

    For example, at first we planned to use laptops, because we thought the portability would be convenient and the screen size would be appropriate for older adults. However, during the iterative development process, we learned from the end-users and observations of the testers that tablets were preferable, therefor the game development was switched from laptops to tablets. Tablets are easily mobile and can be easily disassociated from the keypad—a technology that often appears intimidating to PwD. Moreover, tablets use a touch screen and/or a stylus, an object resembling a pen, an element likely to be culturally more familiar to PwD then a keyboard. As we live in a society where technology is ubiquitous, our theoretical presupposition is that self-efficacy of PwD would be enhanced by their successful use of tablet technology [99,100].

    Game Framing Methodology

    Broadly speaking, we developed a matrix based on the aforementioned theoretical frameworks that guided the creation of every game screen. A brief summary of these variables is depicted in Table 1. The aim was to create a fun and engaging game environment that is, on one hand challenging enough to provide an exercising and learning effect, while on the other hand, specifically adapted to assist in exercising key cognitive strengths a PwD has available (such as implicit memory), while providing assistive mechanisms to help overcome extraneous limitations (that would impede the accomplishing of tasks).

    Table 1. Examples of variables taken into consideration for game screen frames.
    View this table

    We identified a set of functional simple daily tasks that are essential and culturally relevant to daily life. Each task was then divided into subtasks, utilizing an occupational therapy methodology, primarily adapted from neuro-rehabilitation [101]. Each subtask was further clarified in terms of the main key cognitive skills it reflects. While it is of course not possible to untangle different cognitive skills during task performance, it is possible to identify the main cognitive skills around which the game screen is designed, that is, executive function, eye hand coordination, working memory, and prolonged attention [102].

    Each game screen was person-centered [103], and was designed in such a way that a measurement instrument collected game performance data (ie, speed of initial interaction with the game screen, speed of successful screen completion, and number of screens completed successfully).

    One sample game frame is presented in Figure 2. In this frame, the PwD was instructed to follow written and oral instructions to find, drag, and move items on the tablet touch screen. Table 2 describes the other various actions or tasks the PwD were asked to do in other game screens. It also lists the skills targeted by all of the game screens.

    At the end of the iterative development stage, we had developed a prototype of a tablet-based game for PwD with 39 game screens. The prototype was used for the proof of concept pilot study that we report on next.

    Table 2. Game screens: game types and skills involved. A list of the nine major game types used in the study, with all relevant physical and cognitive skills targeted.
    View this table
    Figure 2. Sample game frame.
    View this figure


    The aim of our research was to answer the following questions: (1) Are serious computer games acceptable accessible and engaging for people with moderate and advanced dementia? (2) Are people with moderate and advanced dementia able to use a tablet? and (3) Can PwD improve the speed of performing a task with practice, indicating their ability to learn?



    A pilot study for proof of concept was conducted to answer the above questions. The game was played with the PwD and a tester present in a quiet room, located in the MELABEV dementia day center, Jerusalem, Israel. MELABEV has four day-care centers attended by approximately 500 PwDs, ranging from people with moderate cognitive impairment (MCI) to advanced dementia. MELABEV’s professional staff routinely uses computer games on a one-to-one basis for cognitive stimulation gaming [104], as well as reminiscence therapy at the computer [105]. Primary family caregivers who enroll the PwD in the day care program consent to the participation of their family member with these kinds of technology, as well as all other activities in the day care center.

    Meaningful informed consent for people with dementia is challenging. Thus, for our pilot study, we utilized the participatory consent process [106]—each time a game was presented, the participant was asked by the tester if she agreed to participate in the gaming session. Upon agreement, the PwD voluntarily got up and was guided to the designated space ̶ the computer room, to play the game. If the PwD did not agree to participate, he/she remained in the regular activity room, did not go to the computer room and did not use the game that time, with no consequences what so ever to the services they received in the center. If at any time during the game session, the PwD said or acted as if they didn't want to continue, the game session was terminated and they were taken back to the regular activity room.

    During the 10 week pilot study, the PwD played the prototype game 1-2 times a week under supervision of testers. There were 6 different testers. All testers had past experience working with the PwD population: occupational therapist, gerontologist, social worker, pre-med student, occupational therapist student, and activity worker. Only 2 of the 6 were involved in the development of the game.

    Testers’ main task was to observe the sessions and manually record their observations related to the PwD’s interaction with the game for each game frame. They also recorded unsolicited, unprompted spontaneous verbal comments made by the PwD while using the game. Also, testers assisted PwD to maintain their attention on the game throughout the session by prompting them to refocus, when this was called for. Finally, testers were instructed to assist with any technological issues that might arrive.

    Each game session was between 20-30 minutes, a recommended time for therapy sessions with PwD. All sessions took place at approximately the same time of day in a quiet room. In every game session, each PwD had the opportunity to play the complete game of 39 game screens. Each game screen was played in the following way. If they were successful, they received a success message (audibly and visually) relevant to the activity performed. If the PwD did not succeed at first, they were cued (audibly and visually). The cueing procedure repeated 3 times, and then, even if the person didn't complete the screen successfully, the game advanced to the next screen. Success or failure, as well as other variables were recorded internally by the tablet.


    Out of about 200 PwD from two of MELABEV’s day care centers with moderate to advanced dementia, 24 persons were found to fit the inclusion criteria and participated in the pilot study (age range: 65 years – 90 years, 15 women, and 9 men). The PwD included had cognitive assessment scores (as tested by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment MoCA) as low as 6/30 [107] or a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) as low as 10/30 [108]. We excluded patients with aggression, delusional behavior, a history of alcohol or substance abuse, depression, severe auditory, and visual or motor deficits, as assessed by the professional staff at MELABEV.

    Fourteen healthy community dwelling older adults (age range: 65 years – 90 years; 11 women, 3 men) also volunteered to participate in this process. Game sessions took place in their homes at the time that was convenient for them. These older adults served as an age-matched control group and could verbalize their opinions relating to the games accessibility and acceptability better than PwD.


    A mixed methods approach was utilized for evaluation [109]. Quantitative data for each participant was recorded automatically by the tablet platform, collecting game performance data on speed of successful screen completion and task completion rate. These data were analyzed using a mixed-model repeated-measure ANOVA (analysis of variance).

    Qualitative data included the observations of the 6 testers from each game session they participated in, as well as the spontaneous comments from participants during the game session. The testers recorded their observations and the participant’s comments relating to each game screen in an Excel document immediately after each game session. The Excel (Microsoft) document was analyzed for themes using grounded theory by 2 researchers and a research assistant, each one separately. Analysis was then discussed as a group between the 3 researchers until consensus about common themes was reached. A list of 10 themes emerged. One of the major themes relates to self-efficacy of PwD and is discussed in this paper. Other themes will be discussed in a future paper.



    Of the 24 PwD who began the pilot study, 12 (50%) dropped out during the study. Reasons for dropping out included: rapid deterioration of physical and/or cognitive condition, vision deterioration, did not attend day care center due to illness, institutionalization, death, preference of other programs going on in the activity room, lack of interest in the game, and found the game to be too easy. Of those that dropped out 3 (12.5%) were game related (too easy, didn’t interest them) and 9 (37.5%) were aging or dementia related.


    As expected, quantitative analysis showed that the average speed of successful screen completion was significantly longer for PwD compared with healthy older adults, t34=4.4, P<.001 (see Figure 3), with an average of 45.5 (SE 5.1) and 17.4 (SE 1.1) seconds/game frame for PwD and healthy controls, respectively. Note that, as expected, performance was much more varied across PwD than across controls.

    Next, Figure 4 presents the average speed for successful screen completion for the first 3 sessions, separately for PwD and controls. To test whether performance improved with practice to the same extent for the two groups, a mixed-model repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted. Speed of screen completion was the dependent variable, session (1, 2, or 3) served as the within participants variable and group (PwD vs controls) as the between participant variable. A significant linear trend for session (ie, session 1 > 2 > 3) was found across both groups, F1, 20=6.1, P=.02, ηp2=.23, denoting an increase in speed with practice. Clearly, a main effect for group membership was noted, with significantly slower performance for PwD than for controls, F1, 20=23.3, P<.001, ηp2 = .54, but the linear trend did not interact significantly with group membership, F1,20=1.1, P>.3. In other words, the rate of improved speed with practice for PwD and healthy controls was not statistically different. Finally, the average number of game screens completed correctly by PwD per game session was 13.4 out of 22, representing 61% of the game frames.

    In sum, these results may suggest that the tasks were well designed for the PwD group that is challenging enough to encourage improved performance, but not too challenging as to frustrate learning. For our control group, it appears that the tasks were easy and they quickly reached a ceiling of performance. Most importantly, it appears that when tasks are designed with PwD in mind, the rate of improvement in performance with practice (ie, learning) is not significantly different than the rate for healthy age-matched controls.

    Qualitative analysis of the PwD spontaneous comments (eg, expressed while playing the game), as recorded manually by testers, reveal the following major themes in accessibility, acceptability, engagement, and self-efficacy.

    First, it appears that the PwD were able to interact with the tablet and the game was acceptable to them and they even enjoyed playing it as indicated by the following:

    “Thanks for choosing me to play the game.” C.
    “I will recommend it to all my friends.” G.
    “It was lovely.” C.

    The enjoyment was not dependent on cognitive ability or on getting the correct answer. This was even the case with PwD who performed poorly on the game. For example, one woman would sing along with the game with a smile on her face even when she did not get the correct answer. Healthy older adults, on the other hand, found the game too easy, and on the most part not highly engaging.

    In addition, we have some preliminary qualitative indicators that PwD’s self-efficacy was improved. Quotes from the PwD expressed a sense of self-worth and an increase in their self-esteem with the use of the game as the testers heard quotes such as

    “I did it!” M.
    “Now I know what utensil goes with what” M.

    Increase in self-reported self-efficacy was found and seen with PwD only, and not reported by the healthy community dwelling older adults.

    The PwD were able to remember certain game components, both those that were easy for them and those that were more difficult, as demonstrated from this spontaneous comment from a PwD to the tester accompanying him: “I can play the game, except for one that is a bit harder.” C.

    We observed learning and special learning techniques used by the PwD in order to progress in the game. For example, one tester overheard the PwD speak to the tablet, which asked him for the answer for a second time saying, “I know, I know, I am working on it.” C. He expressed the fact that he was thinking and interacting with the tablet.

    Testers observed that auditory cueing improved PwD’s performance and engagement with the game.

    Figure 3. Average speed in seconds of successful screen completion for people with dementia and controls.
    View this figure
    Figure 4. Average speed in seconds of successful screen completion for people with dementia and controls as a function of practice in the first three sessions.
    View this figure


    Relevance of Our Findings

    The field of serious games for PwD is in its infancy. Our paper reporting on a research and development project aims to add much needed initial knowledge in this area. In relation to our original research questions, we learned that: (1) serious computer games can be acceptable and accessible to PwD; (2) people with moderate and advanced dementia are able to use a tablet; and (3) PwD improved in their speed of successful screen completion with practice, at a non-significantly different rate than healthy older adults, implying some form of significant learning occurred (see Figure 4).

    From qualitative analysis of PwD spontaneous comments, we learned that PwD enjoyed using the game. Our findings are consistent with previous research suggesting that technology can be empowering and satisfying to participants [110].

    Although it is generally assumed that PwD cannot learn new information and skills, our exploratory data show that some of those who used the game learned how to do many of its activities. Future research will test exactly what is learned in the game, and more importantly, if there is a transfer of knowledge from the game to real life scenarios over time.

    There are several additional key themes that emerged in this pilot study that may be useful for clinical intervention and future game design. First, from the observations of the occupational therapists it appears that PwD can use a tablet better than a laptop. It was found to be easier for them to manipulate [111], as they can adjust it and hold it with minimal difficulties. Indeed, the touch screen response mode is easier than a mouse or keyboard [112]. Second, the testers observed that auditory cueing improves PwD’s performance, supporting some of the findings in the literature [113-115].

    Finally, it was encouraging to see that even people with dementia, who at the outset were hesitant to play the game, also had a positive interaction with the technology. Specifically, PwD who initially said that “this is not for me” because “I don’t know anything about tablets,” reported enjoying the game after their initial trial session and learning how to interact with it.


    This initial exploration has several limitations. The sample size was small, the duration was rather short, and not all the testers involved in the pilot were independent from the game development process. We also acknowledge that, in this stage, it is not possible to point out which of the factors considered during the development had the most effect on the results.

    Comparison With Prior Work

    Mccallum and Boletsis [116] in their literature review of dementia-related serious games reported a proliferation of cognitive training, exercise, and social games targeting dementia as well as its various symptoms. They conclude that serious games for dementia have a real effect on PwD, but the field is still “unchartered.” Robert and colleagues [117] recommend that serious games, adapted specifically for PwD, may constitute an important tool to maintain autonomy. Kenigsberg and colleagues [118] elaborate saying that “by providing pleasurable activities and person empowerment, these games are a way to enter the homes of PwD through technology, to structure collaborative care knowledge related to dementia and to educate stakeholders so they can cope with critical situations in everyday life.” Establishing links between behavioral disorders and their causes could help a personal or virtual coach in developing a care plan and lifestyle training. They close by stating, that the role of technology in improving sensory impairments and facilitating activities of daily living and providing positive experiences is underexplored. Our work is based on these previous studies and recommendations and focuses primarily on facilitating activities of daily living and providing positive experiences for PwD. This area has not been hitherto sufficiently researched.

    Conclusion and Future Work

    Based on both qualitative and quantitative analyses, our pilot, proof of concept study demonstrates that our game was acceptable, accessible, enjoyable, and engaging for PwD. We believe that this type of game set may be useful in creating activities for people with moderate to advanced dementia. These types of serious games may provide meaningful activities for the dyad—PwD and the caregivers of PwD. Such games may also be a good way to assess cognitive status of PwD in a nonthreatening way [119-123]. Future work should also consider cultural and language aspects that may affect performance and engagement (for a discussion, see [124]), as well as aspects of the testers themselves [125].

    The significant improved speed for task completion may also suggest that the theoretical methodology used in constructing the game screens is suitable for PwD as it utilizes their remaining capacities - implicit memory and stimulates learning. Our future goal is to expand the game activities based on our holistic theory driven matrix. We aim to add more game screens and be able to study the transferability effect from game screens to functionality in real life scenarios. We plan to develop a training manual for professional and family caregivers related to how to use the game and deploy the package in a large practical trial with PwD living in the community setting. Finally, to test the game’s efficacy, we wish to evaluate, through a randomized trial, the trajectories of functionality in people with moderate to advanced dementia and the impact of playing the game on this trajectory.


    We would like to thank the Israeli Ministry of Economy, Office of the Chief scientist, and the Israeli Ministry of Immigrant Absorption, new immigrant Scientists for helping to fund this research. We would also like to thank our medical student, Ayala Farkash, and our occupational therapy student, Sari Reichman, for help with this research.

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.


    1. Krumeich A, Meershoek A. Health in global context; beyond the social determinants of health? Glob Health Action 2013 Feb 13;7:23506 [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    2. Ballesteros S, Kraft E, Santana S, Tziraki C. Maintaining older brain functionality: a targeted review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2015 Aug;55:453-477. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    3. Anderson-Hanley C, Maloney M, Barcelos N, Striegnitz K, Kramer A. Neuropsychological benefits of neuro-exergaming for older adults: a pilot study of an interactive physical and cognitive exercise system (iPACES). J Aging Phys Act 2017 Jan;25(1):73-83. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    4. Niederstrasser NG, Hogervorst E, Giannouli E, Bandelow S. Approaches to cognitive stimulation in the prevention of dementia. J Gerontol Geriatr Res 2016;S5:005. [CrossRef]
    5. Brasil LM, Santos LIB, Calixto MF, da Silva JPL, Peron GC, de Meneses KVP, et al. Using Computer Games as a Strategy for Maintaining the Cognitive Capacity of the Elderly. In: IFMBE Proceedings. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2012 May Presented at: World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering; May 26-31, 2012; Beijing, China p. 26-31. [CrossRef]
    6. Buiza C, Gonzalez MF, Facal D, Martinez V, Diaz U, Etxaniz A, et al. Efficacy of cognitive training experiences in the elderly: Can technology help? In: UAHCI 2009: Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Addressing Diversity. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 2009 Presented at: International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction; July 19 - 24, 2009; San Diego, CA p. 324-333. [CrossRef]
    7. McCallum S, Boletsis C. Dementia Games: a literature review of dementia-related Serious Games. In: SGDA 2013: Serious Games Development and Applications. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2013 Presented at: International Conference on Serious Games Development and Applications; 25-27 September; Trondheim, Norway p. 15-27. [CrossRef]
    8. Martinovic D, Ezeife CI, Whent R, Reed J, Burgess GH, Pomerleau CM, et al. “Critic-proofing” of the cognitive aspects of simple games. Comput Educ 2014 Mar;72:132-144. [CrossRef]
    9. Astell A. Developing computer games for people with dementia. Gerontechnology 2010;9(2):189. [CrossRef]
    10. Henwood M, Butler T, Pollard K. Eprints UWE. 2015. Slaying the demon. The dementia challenge: Progress and achievements   URL: [accessed 2017-06-27] [WebCite Cache]
    11. Spijker A, Vernooij-Dassen M, Vasse E, Adang E, Wollersheim H, Grol R, et al. Effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions in delaying the institutionalization of patients with dementia: a meta-analysis. J Am Geriatr Soc 2008 Jun;56(6):1116-1128. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    12. Thomas P, Ingrand P, Lalloue F, Hazif-Thomas C, Billon R, Viéban F, et al. Reasons of informal caregivers for institutionalizing dementia patients previously living at home: the Pixel study. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2004 Feb;19(2):127-135. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    13. Bier N, Brambati S, Macoir J, Paquette G, Schmitz X, Belleville S, et al. Relying on procedural memory to enhance independence in daily living activities: smartphone use in a case of semantic dementia. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2015;25(6):913-935. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    14. Ballesteros S, Kraft E, Santana S, Tziraki C. Maintaining older brain functionality: a targeted review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2015 Aug;55:453-477. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    15. Kenigsberg PA, Aquino JP, Bérard A, Gzil F, Andrieu S, Banerjee S, et al. Dementia beyond 2025: knowledge and uncertainties. Dementia (London) 2016 Jan;15(1):6-21. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    16. Robert PH, König A, Amieva H, Andrieu S, Bremond F, Bullock R, et al. Recommendations for the use of Serious Games in people with Alzheimer's Disease, related disorders and frailty. Front Aging Neurosci 2014 Mar 24;6:54 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    17. Otswithapps. 2015 Mar 22. iDo Hygiene App   URL: [accessed 2017-06-27] [WebCite Cache]
    18. American Psychiatric Association. DSM-5 Update. September2016. In: Supplement to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-5. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2017.
    19. Choi J, Twamley EW. Cognitive rehabilitation therapies for Alzheimer's disease: a review of methods to improve treatment engagement and self-efficacy. Neuropsychology review 2013 Mar;23(1):48-62 [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    20. Valdez RS, Holden RJ, Novak LL, Veinot TC. Transforming consumer health informatics through a patient work framework: connecting patients to context. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2015 Jan;22(1):2-10. [Medline]
    21. Schwarzer R, Fuchs R. Self-efficacy and health behaviors. In: Conner M, Norman P, editors. Predicting health behavior: Research and practice with social cognition models. Buckingham: Open University Press, McGraw-Hill Education; 1995:163-196.
    22. Mayo AM, Wallhagen M, Cooper BA, Mehta K, Ross L, Miller B. The relationship between functional status and judgment/problem solving among individuals with dementia. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2013 May;28(5):514-521 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    23. Gitlin LN, Kales HC, Lyketsos CG. Nonpharmacologic management of behavioral symptoms in dementia. JAMA 2012 Nov 21;308(19):2020-2029. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Bandura A. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. ‎Am Psychol 1982 Feb;37(2):122-147.
    25. Chang FH, Latham NK, Ni P, Jette AM. Does self-efficacy mediate functional change in older adults participating in an exercise program after hip fracture? A randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2015 Jun;96(6):1014-1020. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    26. Barkley RA. The executive functions and self-regulation: an evolutionary neuropsychological perspective. Neuropsychol Rev 2001 Mar;11(1):1-29. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    27. Parasuraman R, Haxby JV. Attention and brain function in Alzheimer's disease: a review. Neuropsychology 1993 Jul;7(3):242-272. [CrossRef]
    28. Lustig C, Snyder AZ, Bhakta M, O'Brien KC, McAvoy M, Raichle ME, et al. Functional deactivations: change with age and dementia of the Alzheimer type. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003 Nov 25;100(24):14504-14509 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    29. Smith EE, Jonides J. Storage and executive processes in the frontal lobes. Science 1999 Mar 12;283(5408):1657-1661. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    30. Lustig C, Hasher L, Zacks R. Inhibitory deficit theory: Recent developments in a “new view”. In: Gorfein DS, MacLeod CM, editors. Inhibition in cognition. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association; 2007:145-162.
    31. Lancioni GE, Perilli V, Singh NN, O'Reilly MF, Sigafoos J, Cassano G, et al. Technology-aided pictorial cues to support the performance of daily activities by persons with moderate Alzheimer's disease. Res Dev Disabil 2012;33(1):265-273. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    32. Marques A, Cruz J, Barbosa A, Figueiredo D, Sousa LX. Motor and multisensory care-based approach in dementia: long-term effects of a pilot study. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen 2013 Feb;28(1):24-34. [CrossRef]
    33. Guerreiro MJ, Eck J, Moerel M, Evers EA, Van Gerven PW. Top-down modulation of visual and auditory cortical processing in aging. Behav Brain Res 2015 Feb 1;278:226-234. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    34. Dowiasch S, Marx S, Einhäuser W, Bremmer F. Effects of aging on eye movements in the real world. Front Hum Neurosci 2015 Feb 10;9:46 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    35. Mayo AM, Wallhagen M, Cooper BA, Mehta K, Ross L, Miller B. The relationship between functional status and judgment/problem solving among individuals with dementia. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2013 May;28(5):514-521 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    36. Ben-David BM, Tewari A, Shakuf V, Van Lieshout PH. Stroop effects in Alzheimer's disease: selective attention speed of processing, or color-naming? A meta-analysis. J Alzheimers Dis 2014;38(4):923-938. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    37. Ben-David BM, Schneider BA. A sensory origin for color-word stroop effects in aging: simulating age-related changes in color-vision mimics age-related changes in Stroop. Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn 2010 Nov;17(6):730-746. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    38. Ben-David BM, Chambers CG, Daneman M, Pichora-Fuller MK, Reingold EM, Schneider BA. Effects of aging and noise on real-time spoken word recognition: evidence from eye movements. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2011 Feb;54(1):243-262. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    39. Heinrich A, Gagne JP, Viljanen A, Levy DA, Ben-David BM, Schneider BA. Effective communication as a fundamental aspect of active aging and well-being: paying attention to the challenges older adults face in noisy environments. Social Inquiry into Well-Being 2016 Sep 15;2(1):51-69.
    40. Hadar B, Skrzypek JE, Wingfield A, Ben-David BM. Working memory load affects processing time in spoken word recognition: evidence from eye-movements. Front Neurosci 2016 May 19;10:221. [Medline]
    41. Pichora-Fuller MK, Kramer SE, Eckert MA, Edwards B, Hornsby BW, Humes LE, et al. Hearing impairment and cognitive energy: the framework for understanding effortful listening (FUEL). Ear Hear 2016;37(Suppl 1):5S-27S. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    42. Schneider BA, Pichora-Fuller K, Danmean M. Effects of senescent changes in audition and cognition on spoken language comprehension. In: Gordon-Salant S, Popper AN, Fay RR, editors. The Aging Auditory System. Springer Handbook of Auditory Research. New York: Springer; 2010:167-210.
    43. Fritz CO, Morris PE. Part-set cuing of texts, scenes, and matrices. Br J Psychol 2015 Feb;106(1):1-21. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    44. Daffner KR, Haring AE, Alperin BR, Zhuravleva TY, Mott KK, Holcomb PJ. The impact of visual acuity on age-related differences in neural markers of early visual processing. Neuroimage 2013 Feb 15;67:127-136 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    45. Schneck ME, Haegerstrom-Portnoy G, Lott LA, Brabyn JA. Comparison of panel D-15 tests in a large older population. Optom Vis Sci 2014 Mar;91(3):284-290 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    46. Cuetos F, Arce N, Martínez C, Ellis AW. Word recognition in Alzheimer's disease: effects of semantic degeneration. J Neuropsychol 2017 Mar;11(1):26-39. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    47. Lam KJ, Dijkstra T, Rueschemeyer SA. Feature activation during word recognition: action, visual, and associative-semantic priming effects. Front Psychol 2015 May 27;6:659 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    48. Mondini S, Arcara G, Jarema G. Semantic and syntactic processing of mass and count nouns: data from dementia. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2014;36(9):967-980. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    49. Robert PH, König A, Amieva H, Andrieu S, Bremond F, Bullock R, et al. Recommendations for the use of Serious Games in people with Alzheimer's Disease, related disorders and frailty. Front Aging Neurosci 2014 Mar 24;6:54 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    50. Dominowski RL. Content effects in Wason's selection task. In: Newstead S, Evans J, editors. Perspectives on thinking and reasoning: essays in honour of Peter Wason. UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd; 1995:41-66.
    51. Zimmerman S, Hasher L, Goldstein D. Cognitive ageing: a positive perspective. In: Kapur N, editor. The Paradoxical Brain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011:130-150.
    52. Blanchard-Fields F. Everyday problem solving and emotion: an adult developmental perspective. Current Directions in Psychol Sci 2007 Feb;16(1):26-31. [CrossRef]
    53. Carstensen LL, Mikels JA. At the intersection of emotion and cognition. Aging and the positivity effect. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2005;14(3):117-121. [CrossRef]
    54. Mikels JA, Larkin GR, Reuter-Lorenz PA, Carstensen LL. Divergent trajectories in the aging mind: changes in working memory for affective versus visual information with age. Psychol Aging 2005 Dec;20(4):542-553. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    55. Merriam SB, Caffarella RS, Baumgartner LM. Learning in adulthood: a comprehensive guide. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons; Mar 21, 2012.
    56. Hassin RR, Bargh JA, Engell AD, McCulloch KC. Implicit working memory. Conscious Cogn 2009 Sep;18(3):665-678 [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    57. Vygotsky LS, Cole M. In: Cole M, editor. Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Boston: Harvard University Press; Sep 15, 1980.
    58. Wertsch JV, del Rio P, Alvarez A. Sociocultural studies of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Apr 28, 1995.
    59. Daniels H. Vygotsky and Dialogic Pedagogy. Cultural-Historical Psychology 2014;10(3):19-29.
    60. Brandt BL, Farmer Jr JA, Buckmaster A. Cognitive apprenticeship approach to helping adults learn. New Dir Adult Cont Educ 1993 Sep;1993(59):69-78. [CrossRef]
    61. Ewing G. From neuroplasticity to scaffolding: a giant step for cognitive aging research? Int J User-Driven Healthc 2012 Apr 01;2(2):24-43. [CrossRef]
    62. Nisbett RE. Intelligence and how to get it: why schools and cultures count. New York: WW Norton & Company; 2010.
    63. Smith ER, Broughton M, Baker R, Pachana NA, Angwin AJ, Humphreys MS, et al. Memory and communication support in dementia: research-based strategies for caregivers. Int Psychogeriatr 2011 Mar;23(2):256-263. [Medline]
    64. Ballesteros S, Mayas J, Prieto A, Toril P, Pita C, Laura Pde L, et al. A randomized controlled trial of brain training with non-action video games in older adults: results of the 3-month follow-up. Front Aging Neurosci 2015 Apr 14;7:45. [Medline]
    65. Mitchell DB, Bruss PJ. Age differences in implicit memory: conceptual, perceptual, or methodological? Psychol Aging 2003 Dec;18(4):807-822. [Medline]
    66. Ballesteros S, Prieto A, Mayas J, Toril P, Pita C, Ponce de León L, et al. Brain training with non-action video games enhances aspects of cognition in older adults: a randomized controlled trial. Front Aging Neurosci 2014 Oct 14;6:277. [Medline]
    67. van Halteren-van Tilborg IADA, Scherder EJA, Hulstijn W. Motor-skill learning in Alzheimer's disease: a review with an eye to the clinical practice. Neuropsychol Rev 2007 Sep;17(3):203-212.
    68. Ballesteros S, Mayas J, Reales JM. Cognitive function in normal aging and in older adults with mild cognitive impairment. Psicothema 2013 Feb;25(1):18-24. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    69. Ballesteros S, Reales JM. Intact haptic priming in normal aging and Alzheimer's disease: evidence for dissociable memory systems. Neuropsychologia 2004;42(8):1063-1070. [Medline]
    70. Caporael LR. Evolution, Groups, and Scaffolded Minds. In: Caporael LR, Griesemer JR, Wimsatt WC, editors. Developing Scaffolds in Evolution, Culture, and Cognition. Boston: MIT press; Nov 2013:57-76.
    71. Barkley RA. The executive functions and self-regulation: an evolutionary neuropsychological perspective. Neuropsychol Rev 2001 Mar;11(1):1-29. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    72. Clare L, Jones RS. Errorless learning in the rehabilitation of memory impairment: a critical review. Neuropsychol Rev 2008 Mar;18(1):1-23. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    73. Middleton EL, Schwartz MF. Errorless learning in cognitive rehabilitation: a critical review. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2012;22(2):138-168 [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    74. Wilson BA, Baddeley A, Evans J, Shiel A. Errorless learning in the rehabilitation of memory impaired people. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2010 May 14;4(3):307-326. [CrossRef]
    75. Lee GY, Yip CC, Yu EC, Man DW. Evaluation of a computer-assisted errorless learning-based memory training program for patients with early Alzheimer's disease in Hong Kong: a pilot study. Clin Interv Aging 2013;8:623-633 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    76. de Werd MM, Boelen D, Rikkert MG, Kessels RP. Errorless learning of everyday tasks in people with dementia. Clin Interv Aging 2013;8:1177-1190. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    77. Roediger HL, Karpicke JD. Test-enhanced learning: taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychol Sci 2006 Mar;17(3):249-255. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    78. Choi J, Twamley EW. Cognitive rehabilitation therapies for Alzheimer's disease: a review of methods to improve treatment engagement and self-efficacy. Neuropsychol Rev 2013 Mar;23(1):48-62 [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    79. Fish JE, Manly T, Kopelman MD, Morris RG. Errorless learning of prospective memory tasks: an experimental investigation in people with memory disorders. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2015;25(2):159-188 [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    80. Clare L, Wilson BA, Breen K, Hodges JR. Errorless learning of face-name associations in early Alzheimer's disease. Neurocase 2010 May 14;4(3):307-326. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    81. Schvaneveldt RW, Meyer DE. Retrieval and comparison processes in semantic memory. In: Kornblum S, editor. Attention and performance IV. New York: Academic Press; 1973:395-409.
    82. Fleischman DA. Repetition priming in aging and Alzheimer's disease: an integrative review and future directions. Cortex 2007 Oct;43(7):889-897. [Medline]
    83. Fleischman DA, Wilson RS, Gabrieli JD, Schneider JA, Bienias JL, Bennett DA. Implicit memory and Alzheimer's disease neuropathology. Brain 2005 Sep;128(Pt 9):2006-2015. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    84. Fleischman DA, Bienias JL, Bennett DA. Repetition priming and change in functional ability in older persons without dementia. Neuropsychology 2009 Jan;23(1):98-104 [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    85. Makovski T. What is the context of contextual cueing? Psychon Bull Rev 2016 Dec;23(6):1982-1988. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    86. Chun MM, Jiang Y. Contextual cueing: implicit learning and memory of visual context guides spatial attention. Cogn Psychol 1998 Jun;36(1):28-71. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    87. Chun MM. Contextual cueing of visual attention. Trends Cogn Sci 2000 May;4(5):170-178. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    88. Mondini S, Arcara G, Jarema G. Semantic and syntactic processing of mass and count nouns: data from dementia. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2014;36(9):967-980. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    89. Lam KJ, Dijkstra T, Rueschemeyer SA. Feature activation during word recognition: action, visual, and associative-semantic priming effects. Front Psychol 2015 May 27;6:659 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    90. Schneider BA, Pichora-Fuller K, Danmean M. Effects of senescent changes in audition and cognition on spoken language comprehension. In: Gordon-Salant S, Frisina R, Popper A, Fay R, editors. The Aging Auditory System. Springer Handbook of Auditory Research. New York: Springer; 2010:167-210.
    91. Heinrich A, Gagné JP, Viljanen A, Levy DA, Ben-David BM, Schneider BA. Effective communication as a fundamental aspect of active aging and well-being: paying attention to the challenges older adults face in noisy environments. SIIW 2016;2(1):51-69.
    92. Ben-David BM, Erel H, Goy H, Schneider BA. “Older is always better”: age-related differences in vocabulary scores across 16 years. Psychol Aging 2015 Dec;30(4):856-862. [Medline]
    93. Ben-David BM, Icht M. Oral-diadochokinetic rates for Hebrew-speaking healthy ageing population: non-word versus real-word repetition. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2016 Jul 18;52(3):301-310.
    94. Rogers WA, Fisk AD. Toward a psychological science of advanced technology design for older adults. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2010;65B(6):645-653 [FREE Full text]
    95. Harte RP, Glynn LG, Broderick BJ, Rodriguez-Molinero A, Baker PM, McGuiness B, et al. Human centred design considerations for connected health devices for the older adult. J Pers Med 2014 Jun 04;4(2):245-281 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    96. ISO. Switzerland; 2010 Mar. ISO 9241-210:2010: Ergonomics of human system interaction-Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems   URL: [accessed 2017-07-12] [WebCite Cache]
    97. Valdez RS, Holden RJ, Novak LL, Veinot TC. Transforming consumer health informatics through a patient work framework: connecting patients to context. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2015 Jan;22(1):2-10.
    98. Span M, Hettinga M, Vernooij-Dassen M, Eefsting J, Smits C. Involving people with dementia in the development of supportive IT applications: a systematic review. Ageing Res Rev 2013 Mar;12(2):535-551. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    99. McCallum S, Boletsis C. Dementia Games: a literature review of dementia-related Serious Games. In: Serious Games Development and Applications - Lecture Notes in Computer Science.: Springer; 2013 Sep 25 Presented at: International Conference on Serious Games Development and Applications; 2013 Sep 25; Berlin p. 15-27. [CrossRef]
    100. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev 1977 Mar;84(2):191-215. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    101. Lopresti EF, Mihailidis A, Kirsch N. Assistive technology for cognitive rehabilitation: state of the art. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2004;14(1-2):5-39.
    102. Tupper DE, Cicerone KD. Introduction to the Neuropsychology of Everyday Life. In: Tupper DE, Cicerone KD, editors. The Neuropsychology of Everyday Life: Assessment and Basic Competencies. Foundations of Neuropsychology. USA: Springer; 1990:3-18.
    103. Kitwood TM. Dementia Reconsidered: The Person Comes First. London: Open University Press; 1997.
    104. Berenbaum R, Lange Y, Abramowitz L. Augmentative alternative communication for Alzheimer's patientsfamilies' using SAVION. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments.: ACM; 2011 May 25 Presented at: PETRA '11; May 25-27, 2011; Greece p. 46. [CrossRef]
    105. Douglas S, James I, Ballard C. Non-pharmacological interventions in dementia. BJPsych Adv 2004 May;10(3):171-177. [CrossRef]
    106. Dewing J. Participatory research: a method for process consent with persons who have dementia. Dementia 2007 Feb 01;6(1):11-25. [CrossRef]
    107. Lifshitz M, Dwolatzky T, Press Y. Validation of the Hebrew version of the MoCA test as a screening instrument for the early detection of mild cognitive impairment in elderly individuals. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol 2012 Sep;25(3):155-161. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    108. Werner P, Heinik J, Mendel A, Reicher B, Bleich A. Examining the reliability and validity of the Hebrew version of the Mini Mental State Examination. Aging (Milano) 1999 Oct;11(5):329-334. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    109. Vallejo V, Mitache AV, Tarnanas I, Müri R, Mosimann UP, Nef T. Combining qualitative and quantitative methods to analyze serious games outcomes: a pilot study for a new cognitive screening tool. In: Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2015 Aug Presented at: 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE; 2015 Aug 25; Milan, Italy p. 1327-1330.
    110. Fernández-Prado S, Conlon S, Mayán-Santos JM, Gandoy-Crego M. The influence of a cognitive stimulation program on the quality of life perception among the elderly. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2012;54(1):181-184. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    111. Leng FY, Yeo D, George S, Barr C. Comparison of iPad applications with traditional activities using person-centred care approach: impact on well-being for persons with dementia. Dementia (London) 2014 Mar 1;13(2):265-273. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    112. Findlater L, Froehlich JE, Fattal K, Wobbrock JO, Dastyar T. Age-related differences in performance with touchscreens compared to traditional mouse input. In: CHI '13. New York: ACM; 2013 Apr 27 Presented at: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; April 27-May 02, 2013; Paris, France p. 343-346. [CrossRef]
    113. Wargnier P, Carletti G, Laurent-Corniquet Y, Benveniste S, Jouvelot P, Rigaud A. Field evaluation with cognitively-impaired older adults of attention management in the embodied conversational Agent Louise. 2013 Apr 27 Presented at: 4th International Conference on Serious Games and Applications for Health; 2016 May 11; Orlando, USA p. 1-8.
    114. Tran MK, Robert P, Bremond F. A Virtual Agent for enhancing performance and engagement of older people with dementia in Serious Games. 2016 Presented at: Workshop Artificial Compagnon-Affect-Interaction 2016; 2016 Jun 13; Brest, France.
    115. Pitarque A, Sales A, Meléndez JC, Algarabel S. Repetition increases false recollection in older people. Scand J Psychol 2015 Feb;56(1):38-44. [CrossRef]
    116. McCallum S, Boletsis C. Dementia Games: a literature review of dementia-related Serious Games. In: Serious Games Development and Applications. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2013 Sep 25 Presented at: International Conference on Serious Games Development and Applications; 2013 Sep 25; Berlin, Germany p. 15-27. [CrossRef]
    117. Robert PH, König A, Amieva H, Andrieu S, Bremond F, Bullock R, et al. Recommendations for the use of Serious Games in people with Alzheimer's Disease, related disorders and frailty. Front Aging Neurosci 2014 Mar 24;6:54 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    118. Kenigsberg PA, Aquino JP, Bérard A, Gzil F, Andrieu S, Banerjee S, et al. Dementia beyond 2025: knowledge and uncertainties. Dementia (London) 2016 Jan;15(1):6-21. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    119. Tong T, Chignell M, Tierney MC, Lee J. A serious game for clinical assessment of cognitive status: validation study. JMIR Serious Games 2016 May 27;4(1):e7 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    120. Lumsden J, Edwards EA, Lawrence NS, Coyle D, Munafò MR. Gamification of cognitive assessment and cognitive training: a systematic review of applications and efficacy. JMIR Serious Games 2016 Jul 15;4(2):e11 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    121. Tarnanas I, Schlee W, Tsolaki M, Müri R, Mosimann U, Nef T. Ecological validity of virtual reality daily living activities screening for early dementia: longitudinal study. JMIR Serious Games 2013 Aug 06;1(1):e1 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    122. Aalbers T, Baars Maria A MA, Olde Rikkert MG, Kessels RP. Puzzling with online games (BAM-COG): reliability, validity, and feasibility of an online self-monitor for cognitive performance in aging adults. J Med Internet Res 2013 Dec 3;15(12):e270 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    123. Vallejo V, Wyss P, Rampa L, Mitache AV, Müri RM, Mosimann UP, et al. Evaluation of a novel Serious Game based assessment tool for patients with Alzheimer's disease. PLoS One 2017 May 4;12(5):e0175999 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    124. Icht M, Ben-David BM. Oral-diadochokinesis rates across languages: English and Hebrew norms. J Commun Disord 2014;48:27-37. [Medline]
    125. McGilton KS, Rochon E, Sidani S, Shaw A, Ben-David BM, Saragosa M, et al. Can we help care providers communicate more effectively with persons having dementia living in long-term care homes? Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen 2017 Feb;32(1):41-50 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]


    ADL: activities of daily living
    HCD: human centered design
    ISO: international standardization organization
    ICT: information and communication technology
    MCI: moderate cognitive impairment
    MOCA: Montreal Cognitive Assessment
    MMSE: mini mental state examination
    PwD: people with dementia

    Edited by G Eysenbach; submitted 21.08.16; peer-reviewed by S Ballesteros, L Quinlan, C Smits; comments to author 05.12.16; revised version received 26.03.17; accepted 26.05.17; published 31.07.17

    ©Chariklia Tziraki, Rakel Berenbaum, Daniel Gross, Judith Abikhzer, Boaz M Ben-David. Originally published in JMIR Serious Games (, 31.07.2017.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Serious Games, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.